This Award is given to those players who, during the course of a game, engage in a serious, sometimes heated debate about certain aspects of said game. Note this award isn't meant to honor pettiness or name calling, but rather it is meant to spotlight instances of lucid and well reasoned arguments presented in opposition to one another.

I figure this would be a good place for this, although the Future Games thread would probably work too;

So, I'm considering of switching my B2TF game with a Phoenix Wright game, and delaying B2TF to a later point - or, if I'm not allowed that, just replacing it outright with a Phoenix Wright game, and maybe getting another spot for it later on down the line. I want to do both at some point, but I'm not sure really which I want to do first right now. The Phoenix game will probably be more fun, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I plan on making it far more flavorful then I would the B2TF one, which I always find fun. Another would be that I had to reach a little to fill out 30 spots on B2TF, whereas with Phoenix Wright I have a much easier time getting the spots figured out.

The main reason, though, is because I've thought up a new mechanic for the eventual Phoenix Wright game, and it's very..well, unique. I like the idea of it, but I'm not quite sure if people will be very accepting of it, seeing as it'd only be my first/second game modded..it'd be explained in one of the pre-game posts, so I don't think there'd be any harm in discussing it. Would you guys mind giving your opinion?

Basically this is how the mechanic works - it could get a little confusing, but try to stay with me:

Throughout the game, there shall be a "Judge". This judge may choose one player per night phase to hold in court - which, in essense, is like an in-thread investigation. At the end of the court session, there will be one of three verdicts - Guilty, (Scum) Not Guilty, (Town) or Supsended (Translates in investigator terms of "reading not given", so the trial is suspended until further "evidence" is gathered).

Now. Every character in the game that is a defense attourney is marked as such, and every prosecutor in the game is marked as such. Both sides have rankings that determine how said attournies shape up to their peers. With every trial, there are RNG's held to determine what defender will go against what prosecutor. The outcome is simple - the one with the higher ranking will win. And the verdict depends on the winner's alignment - if the winner is town, the verdict will accurately clear a townie, or reveal a scum. However, if the winner is scum, then townies will be found guilty, and the winner's scum buddies come up innocent.

If the default judge dies, then during the very next day phase, a voting will be held - not for a lynch - but to decide who becomes judge next. The player voted judge will become bulletproof - this caveat makes the role somewhat similar to the "mod" role in one of the GDS Mafia games. However, if the player voted to judge is of the scum side, then all trials held against townies will render a guilty virdict, and all held against fellow team mates will render an innocent verdict - regardless of the attournies.

In the event that the prosecuting and defending attournies are at an equal level, the case will be suspended for that day without a verdict. In keeping with the Phoenix-verse's rules of trials only lasting three days, each player may only be put on trial three times. If a verdict isn't reached by the third attempt, it will be dropped. (It's very unlikely this will happen, of course, as the RNG would have to match up equal attournies for three trials runing) As well as this, if a Guilty or Non-Guilty verdict is passed on a player, a trial may not be held against them again.

...Did you all get that, or should I try to explain again?

What do you think? Would it make for an interesting game? Would people get on me for trying it?

One of the worries I have is that might get too dependant on the mechanic, and not actually "play" the game - do you think I should add some sort of caveat to help prevent this, like say only allow court to be held on odd or even nights?

I not personally sure if alone it'll work. It's why I shelved my political Intergalatic Game - I was trying a different mechanism that I wasn't sure would have the desired affect.

I've never modded a game before, so I decided my first game was not the one to try out a complete game changing mechanism. Mod a normal game first. Maybe throw in something like that mechanic as a one-shot, to see if it will work. You don't want a game ruined because the main mechanism is flawed.

Voting for a lynch stimulates a discussion. I'm not sure discussion will be encouraged as much when a judge is sitting. Lack of conversation could lead to lack of involement which could lead to inactivity.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but I don't know if it would. And I wouldn't dare try something so grand without building up to it with a few other games.

I not personally sure if alone it'll work. It's why I shelved my political Intergalatic Game - I was trying a different mechanism that I wasn't sure would have the desired affect.

I've never modded a game before, so I decided my first game was not the one to try out a complete game changing mechanism. Mod a normal game first. Maybe throw in something like that mechanic as a one-shot, to see if it will work. You don't want a game ruined because the main mechanism is flawed.

Voting for a lynch stimulates a discussion. I'm not sure discussion will be encouraged as much when a judge is sitting. Lack of conversation could lead to lack of involement which could lead to inactivity.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but I don't know if it would. And I wouldn't dare try something so grand without building up to it with a few other games.

Appreciate the comments and I get the concerns, but personally I don't think lack of discussion would be an issue. Looking at the game that I used as an example, there was all sorts of debate as to who would be voted as essential town leader. If anything, it lasted longer, and had more sides to an arguement then most Day 1 phases. MLT compared it to what is called a "King Maker" which I think is like my example, so that portion of the mechanic, while rare, is not neccessarily brand new.

Appreciate the comments and I get the concerns, but personally I don't think lack of discussion would be an issue. Looking at the game that I used as an example, there was all sorts of debate as to who would be voted as essential town leader. If anything, it lasted longer, and had more sides to an arguement then most Day 1 phases. MLT compared it to what is called a "King Maker" which I think is like my example, so that portion of the mechanic, while rare, is not neccessarily brand new.

Thanks for the response though.

Yes like I said to a point it reminded me of a *king maker* game where one person ultimately decides the outcome.

I am however intrigued on the mechanic of the game. If people say maybe not for a big game. Try to trim down to maybe a small game. I would love to try it out and see how it works.